Corporate Responsibility Principles
Gubra’s Corporate Responsibility Principles
Gubra abides by three Corporate Responsibility principles:
- Gubra’s assistance principle: If it is in our power to promote one (or more) of the 17 sustainable development goals, while running a healthy and competitive business, we should do it.
- Gubra’s no-harm principle: We should refrain from harmful actions that violate important rights, including the use of child labor, polluting so that current and future generations cannot have their needs meet, etc.
- Gubra’s law-abiding principle: We should respect national and international law
At first glance, Gubra’s assistance principle might seem rather conventional. But unlike strategic and business-driven CSR, the assistance principle implies that Gubra must go beyond win-win and at times promote one (or more) of the 17 SDGs even in situations where it goes against our financial interests. In fact, the only acceptable excuse we have not to promote one (or more) of the 17 SDGs is if it prevents us from running a healthy and competitive business. Then, what falls under the category “running a healthy and competitive business”?
It is difficult to draw a precise line, but for instance, maximizing profit does not seem to be a necessary condition for running a healthy and competitive business, although generating profit does. At some point, unprofitable companies dissolve, so we need to make money in order to run a healthy and competitive business. Also, we must take good care of our employees and create an inspiring and enjoyable work environment, make ongoing investments in the company, etc.
Gubra’s no-harm principle is inspired by classical prohibitions against harmful actions. Among others, this principle implies that we should not dump our waste in the local forest, even if the additional cost of proper waste-management means that we are unable to stay in business. Of note, many harmful actions are prohibited by law and are thus covered by the law-abiding principle, but not all – e.g., being carbon positive is legal but still conflicts with the no-harm principle. For more on ethical obligations of assistance, click here.